Corporate Sovereignty Provisions Called Into Question Around The World
from the ISDS-is-*so*-twentieth-century dept
A couple of weeks ago, we noted that Germany just threw a big spanner in the TTIP works by calling for corporate sovereignty provisions to be excluded. Although perhaps the most dramatic repudiation of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), it's by no means the only one. Indeed, the tide really seems turning, as country after country calls into question the need to put corporations on the same level as entire nations. For example, according to this report from the Yonhap News Agency, South Korea wants to re-visit the corporate sovereignty chapter in its trade agreement with the US:South Korea plans to hold talks with the United States to rework the investor-state dispute (ISD) clause in their two-year-old free trade pact that has long been cited by critics as being unfair, a government source said Sunday.That's possible because of the following prescient move by South Korea at the time of the trade agreement's signing:
To receive parliamentary approval, Seoul forwarded a proposal to lawmakers that promised a "reevaluation" of the ISD clause down the line.One country that has already "re-evaluated" ISDS, and found it wanting, is South Africa, as Techdirt explained at the end of last year. But the Lexology site reports that it could soon be joined by another major economy:
According to the Netherlands Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia has informed the Netherlands that it has decided to terminate the Bilateral Investment Treaty between the two nations from 1 July 2015. The Embassy also states that "the Indonesian Government has mentioned it intends to terminate all of its 67 bilateral investment treaties".Once more, it seems that painful experiences of corporate sovereignty played their part in the decision:
it would not be surprising if the Churchill Mining Plc v Indonesia cases (ICSID Cases ARB/12/14 and 12/40) have prompted more sweeping action by the Indonesian Government. Churchill and Planet Mining Pty began arbitration against the Indonesian government in May 2012 at ICSID in Washington. On 24 February 2014 the ICSID Tribunal rejected Indonesia's jurisdictional challenges leaving Churchill free to proceed with a claim for damages of not less than US$1.05bn, excluding interest. This decision has caused outrage in Indonesia.That outrage is understandable, since it will be the Indonesian public that will have to foot the billion-dollar bill if the ISDS tribunal rules against Indonesia. In a way, the almost unfettered power of corporate sovereignty has become its own worst enemy. The possibility of making claims for billions of dollars has naturally caught the attention of both the public and politicians in the nations affected, prompting many to re-consider the wisdom of agreeing to this kind of one-sided bargain.
If Indonesia does indeed start terminating its 67 bilateral investment treaties, we can expect other countries to take note and consider following suit. One knock-on effect will be that US insistence on putting corporate sovereignty provisions in TPP will begin to look distinctly out of place in a world where prudent nations are starting to move away from them.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: corporate sovereignty, indonesia, isds, south africa, south korea, tafta, tpp, ttip
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Corporations will become worried about governments increasing tax rates on the wealthy, in order to pay down the national debt.
The wealthy will lobby lawmakers to enact austerity/sequester measures, in order to force the general population to pay off the national debt that Corporate Sovereignty helped rack up.
It's basically corporate double dipping. The pubic is charged for everything they purchase from a corporation. Then the pubic is charged again, through taxes and austerity measures, in order to pay back the dispute settlement debts levied against their government.
ISDS is a win-win if your a multinational corporation, and lose-lose for everyone else, including governments. Governments would be wise to view ISDS as a threat to national security, due to the social unrest a ballooning nation debt and draconian austerity measures cutting public welfare programs will cause.
I'm sure multinational corporations are prepared to take that risk. In the long run, even if ISDS crashes and burns entire populations and economies, the corporations will have already cashed out their double-dip profits and they'll just relocate to another part of the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TTIP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TTIP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TTIP
Look back on history, and you see that before the Civil War, the notion of the employer-employee relationship as we know it today barely existed. Large companies didn't hardly exist, because they couldn't; people would work enough to save up enough money to strike out on their own, or go into the family business.
Or, if you lived in the South, you could have slaves. The interesting thing about slavery that no one really mentions today is that it's not "free labor"; slaves were an investment in property that have to be maintained, much like a horse (or a large and complex machine today). You have to feed a slave, provide housing, see to his basic needs, and all that costs a certain amount of money. But it was profitable enough that you got large plantations with large slave-labor forces, whereas in the North, free people who were able to save up money and strike out on their own usually did, and so large businesses didn't have much of a chance to develop.
Everything changed with the 14th Amendment, and ever since then, certain types of employers (and it's very instructive to see how many of them have Southern roots!) have been working to gradually restore status quo ante. Look at how many workers today are paid just barely enough to pay for food, housing and basic needs--exactly what an "employer" of yesteryear would have needed to pay for the upkeep of a slave--while still nominally enjoying a state of freedom, and you'll see how far we've fallen...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TTIP
It's about corporations trying to override or at least bend the actual sovereignty of the signing nations.
It's about corps trying to put themselves above the concept of sovereignty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TTIP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporate + Sovereignty is an absolute no-no
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Corporate + Sovereignty is an absolute no-no
And if the US does it then it'll try to force it onto the rest of the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Corporate + Sovereignty is an absolute no-no
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Corporate + Sovereignty is an absolute no-no
Here's just the latest pressure point:
NYTimes: Birth Control and a Boss’s Religious Views
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/opinion/birth-control-and-a-bosss-religious-views.html
Boston. com: Supreme Court tackles employer birth control coverage under health law
http://www.boston.com/business/news/2014/03/25/justices-tackle-health-law-birth-control-coverage/ nVy7YoTR1YBH5lVRXpSIvN/story.html
CNSNews: Planned Parenthood: Religious Liberty/Hobby Lobby Suit is About ‘Taking Away Birth Control’ http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/planned-parenthood-religious-libertyhobby-lobby-suit -about-taking-away
ThinkProgress: Hobby Lobby Wins The Right To Deny Its Workers Birth Control Coverage
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/07/19/2329951/hobby-lobby-birth-control/#
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Corporate + Sovereignty is an absolute no-no
Soon .. could mean tomorrow, could mean next year. It certainly does not imply a far off future. Communication requires agreement upon a common understanding of words used. Oh, and I did not the word "if".
The links you provided address a grave issue indeed, however they do not address the American Taliban desire to force employees into worship (of American Taliban Inc).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Countries can turn this around another way other than flat out refusal. They can counter sue for lost taxes from the corporation as well as all the people they were going to employ for the next two-hundred years or so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
While we're discussing this, where are those frantic Libertarian Anarcho-Capitalists when we need them (to bash)? Shouldn't they be in here defending this crap? Also, check this out: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/in-defense-of-empire/358645/
I think it's our future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A way out
1. it cancels all these ISDS treaties;
2. it waits for the verdict;
3. it nationalises all assests of the mining company;
Doing exactly that what the treaty wanted to prevent from happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Biz "rights"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"this is nothing but a giant rip off, designed to put countries in debt to the USA in one way or another."
To the corporations, not the US. With that correction, I agree with you -- that's another reason these ISDS clauses should go away.
Don't equate US corporations with the US. US corporations wouldn't be any more hesitant to use ISDS clauses against the US than they would against any other nation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Biting the hand that feeds you
If a company did the same to the USG though, then suddenly other politicians who were in support or neutral of such clauses would have to justify them to the very public who was about to have to foot the bill, doing massive damages to their chances of getting re-elected, making them much less likely to slip in such clauses in the future.
Mind you, that would require long term planning/thinking, something that those huge companies seem extremely poor at, so it wouldn't surprise me if their greed got the better of them at some point and they did try and shake down the USG, not realizing immediately what they were doing and the likely effects from it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Biting the hand that feeds you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ISPS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TTIP
Back before the crises years, business could run somewhat normally. With the end of the US dollar reserve currency era approaching, in order to keep the fiat ponzi intact for another 'can kicking', whole nations need to be plundered and immediately profited from so the system doesn't implode. If the TTIP passes with the corporation wording intact, it will allow corporations to grab whole years and more worth of profits in one gig, instead of profiting more slowly as in the past. Put another way, now that the dollar is dying, if they didn't make changes to the system like this, we all die just that much sooner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]